Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:34–42.
Attachment C - Recommendations for Broad Consent Guidance. Office for Human Research Protections, 2017. Available at https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/recommendations/attachment-c-august-2-2017/index.html
Mayo Clinic Biobank Consent Form. Mayo Clinic Biobank. Available at http://www.mayo.edu/research/documents/biobank-consent-formpdf/DOC-10027511. (accessed on 31 October 2017)
Consent Form: United Kingdom Biobank. United Kingdom Biobank. 2017.Available at http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Consent_form.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2017)
BioVU Consent Form. Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 2017. Available at https://victr.vanderbilt.edu/pub/biovu/?sid=220 (accessed on 31 October 2017)
Van Assche K, Gutwirth S, Sterckx S. Protecting dignitary interests of biobank research participants: lessons from havasupai tribe v Arizona board of regents. Law, Innov Technol. 2013;5:54–84.
Tomlinson T, De Vries R, Ryan K, Kim HM, Lehpamer N, Kim SY. Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. JAMA. 2015;313:417–9.
De Vries RG, Tomlinson T, Kim HM, et al. The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2016;12:3.
De Vries RG, Tomlinson T, Kim HM, et al. Understanding the public’s reservations about broad consent and study-by-study consent for donations to a biobank: Results of a National Survey. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0159113.
De Vries R, Stanczyk A, Wall IF, Uhlmann R, Damschroder LJ, Kim SY. Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1896–903.
Kim SY, Kim HM, Knopman DS, De Vries R, Damschroder L, Appelbaum PS. Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research. Neurology. 2011;77:2097–104.
McWhirter RE, Critchley CR, Nicol D, et al. Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool. J Pers Med. 2014;4:459–74.
Rychetnik L, Carter SM, Abelson J, et al. Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:380–6.
Silva DS, Gibson JL, Robertson A, et al. Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public’s perspectives. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:241.
Thomas R, Glasziou P, Rychetnik L, Mackenzie G, Gardiner R, Doust J. Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men’s knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005691.
Gornick MC, Scherer AM, Sutton EJ, et al. Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward return of secondary results in genomic sequencing. J Genet Couns. 2016;26:122–32.
Dwyer-White M, Doshi A, Hill M, Pienta KJ. Centralized research recruitment-evolving a local clinical research recruitment web application to better meet user needs. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4:363–8.
OECD Guidelines on Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases (Section 4. 6). 2009. Available at https://www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/44054609.pdf
Strech D, Bein S, Brumhard M, et al. A template for broad consent in biobank research. Results and explanation of an evidence and consensus-based development process. Eur J Med Genet. 2016;59:295–309.
ISBER best practices for repositories: collection, storage, retrieval and distribution of biological materials for research (Section L2.200). 2012. Available at http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.isber.org/resource/resmgr/Files/ISBER_Best_Practices_3rd_Edi.pdf
Rubright JD, Cary MS, Karlawish JH, Kim SY. Measuring how people view biomedical research: Reliability and validity analysis of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6:63–8.
Kim SY, Wall IF, Stanczyk A, De Vries R. Assessing the public’s views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009;4:3–16.
Fisher LD, Dixon DO, Herson J, Frankowski RK, Hearron MS, Peace KE. Intention to Treat in Clinical Trials. Statistical issues in drug research and development. New York: M. Dekker; 1989:331–50.
Simon CM, L’Heureux J, Murray JC, et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet Med. 2011;13:821–31.
D’Abramo F, Schildmann J, Vollmann J. Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:60.
Garrison NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AH, et al. A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet Med. 2016;18:663–71.
Solomon S, Mongoven A. Extending the surrogacy analogy: applying the advance directive model to biobanks. Public Health Genom. 2015;18:1–10.
Mongoven AM, Solomon S. Biobanking: shifting the analogy from consent to surrogacy. Genet Med. 2012;14:183–8.
Grady C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:855–62.
Koenig BA. Have we asked too much of consent? Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44:33–4.
Cargill SS. Biobanking and the abandonment of informed consent: an ethical imperative. Public Health Ethics. 2016;9:255–63.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and health care: ethical issues (Section 3. 12). 2015. Available at http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Biological_and_health_data_web.pdf
WMA Declaration of Taipei On Ethical Considerations Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks (Principle 14). 2016. Available at https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-databases-and-biobanks/
Chrysler D, McGee H, Bach J, Goldman E, Jacobson PD. The Michigan BioTrust for Health: using dried bloodspots for research to benefit the community while respecting the individual. J Law Med Ethics. 2011;39(Suppl 1):98–101.
Garrett SB, Dohan D, Koenig BA. Linking broad consent to biobank governance: support from a deliberative public engagement in California. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:56–7.
O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM, Edwards K, et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:367–74.
O’Doherty KC, Hawkins AK, Burgess MM. Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1604–11.